Splitboard.com Forums

Really narrow stances are difficult to pull off with the Dynasplit system, as Keffler notes, the Dynafit toe piece needs some room between the toe of the boot, and the front binding position in which to work. A highly angled stance requires even more room, as the angle brings the front foot's heel back, to where it can interfere with the placement of the Dynafit toe piece. The most narrow and angled stance I have been able to get away with is approximately 20.5" stance width, with a 30 degree angle on the front foot, but this barely worked (with a 28 boot). I used to ride narrower and more angled stances, (which were more common back in the day), but over the years, I have been opening up my width, and flattening my angles (the existence of wider boards has helped with this). The reason I have changed is that a wider stance, to a degree, gives more stability, and the flex pattern of most boards these days is also optimized for stances between 21"-24", and boards will not ride as well with narrower stances.
The advantages which highly angled stances allow for carving grooomers are disadvantages for riding in the backcountry (narrow boards do not float, developing super high edge pressure is not necessary). I understand why one would ride a highly angled stance for making turns on packed snow, but this style of riding is not applicable to the backcountry, and I would suggest that anyone riding this way might want to consider moderating their stance a little. Even boardercross riders on hard snow understand the advantages of less stance angle when dealing with 3D terrain.
At 6'1", I have gotten to the point where I prefer a 21"-22" stance width, and about 27 degrees F and 7 to 10 degrees R, and my riding has never been better. No, I will not go duck, as I prefer being able to still have my rear hip turned in the direction of travel, but I do understand why some prefer the duck position.

The Phantom Splitboard Bindings are for riding in the backcountry, on Splitboards. There are plenty of other excellent bindings for riding resort groomers.

I am a long time "big board" rider on Radair tankers . I ride the same angles on all my boards and prefer 20.5" at 55/50 with 3 degree cants. On narrow carving setups I go steeper so no toe/heal drag. I have my donek/voile setup at 45/40 but because of the touring brackets and angles I am at 22.5" width and not centered over the "best" sweet spot of my donek. I dont use dynafit toe pieces yet but could go that route with my size 29 scarpas if it solved my stance problems. Sounds like your saying the dynafits take even more space not allowing greater stance angles as compared to the regular voile touring brackets ? I wish there was a solution , maybe sparks edison will eventually solve this but it only has +30-30 angles so far right ?

I welcome any ideas ?

Jim in pdx

Jim: Yes, the Dynafit toe piece requires more room than a Voile (or Spark, or Karakoram) touring bracket. My boots are 28, so your 29s will also be 1 CM longer. At 22.5" width you might be able to get away with 40 degrees on the front foot, maybe, withn a Dynfit toe piece, but it would be close.
The Phantom Bindings also need a little more room than a Voile slider plate based system, not much, but a little.
All I can say for sure, is that if your set up is a tight fit with a Voile touring bracket, it will be more than tight with a Dynafit toe piece.
Mmmm Tankers are cool! I always wanted to split one, but the width is just a little too narrow, conswer the width lost with the cut.

Barrows, I asked Keffler what the angle range was for this binding and he said 30/30. I assumed this was a limitation inherent to the design, but you seem to imply that the 30 deg. front foot limitation owes to overlap with the Dynafit toe-piece at steeper angles.

Is the angle limitation inherent to the binding design or a problem of overlap with the Dynafit toe pieces? If the latter, do you know the binding's inherent angle limitation assuming one had no such overlap problem (as with a much wider stance, for example)?

I'm with Jim on this, much prefer facing the direction of travel w/old skool angles.

no issues with undulating bc terrain or landing cliff drops at old skool angles of 35r/45f with 19-20" wide stance.

I can ride at 20*/30* but it's not as comfortable or efficient for my bio-mechanics, and requires more lateral flex than most hardboots allow but this belong in the discussion thread.

don't have dynatoes yet, but have flattened my angles (25/35-19.5") to allow for tele toe (shorter than dynatoes) w/size 27s for skin mode. the lowest angles I've used in 20yrs but tolerable.

altering the screw hole in the mount plate and/or retainer plate should allow for 35-40 degree angles which works well enough for alpine style on wider boards.
I don't have the cash flow to join the list and help this happen or I would go ahead & mod the phantoms to approach my stance comfort zone at home.

The limitation with greater angles is inherent to my current design. If I were to adjust for larger angles with what I currently have, the parts would overhang the inside of the board when in split ski mode. Might be a little hard to explain and see, but yes, it is inherent in to my design. However, I can see in the future being able to make slightly different parts where this would not be a problem, but at a first glance, it would not be adjustable for lower angles. Meaning it may only be adjustable from +45 to +15 and then -15 to -45, but again, I can't get to this this year. One thing at a time.

Taylor: Yes, maximum angles with the Phantoms are +/- 30 degrees. The angle adjustment has a hard stop at that point. If one takes a close look at the pictures, one can see where the stop is, their is no more room to go further.
My point re the Dynafit toes, is that they require more room than a standard touring bracket, to fit on the board before they will interfere with the heelside ride mode binding. For normal freeride stances, this is not a problem, but people with unusual stance preferences (very narrow, and/or highly angled) need to test for fit with the Dynafit toe pieces. As mentioned, I have previously gotten a 20.5" width stance, with 30-15 degree angles to work with a DynaSplit set up, but it was really close... I now have advanced my system and prefer widths over 21" and angles around ~27F and ~7-10R. Boot length is also a factor in getting everything to fit.

boardski: I agree that one needs boots with more lateral and medial flex (than 4 buckle race/freecarve boots)to ride flatter angles. That is why most backcountry splitters using hard boots tend to choose softer models of AT, and sometimes add additional flex through mods. My set up with TLT5s flex about the same laterally and medially as my Driver X soft boots. I believe Joey Vosburgh (Canukistani Pro) even rides slightly duck in these boots.

I doubt any hardbooters would ride at more than-15*r or less than 15*f anyway, at least no more than us at the other end of the spectrum.

Thanks for your efforts Keffler, looks like a successful advancement for hardboot kind

ps Barrows; I use a softer tele boot until I can afford a dyna set-up. My old nordica and raichle have slotted cuff hinges for med/lat flex and I still prefer over 30*.

this pic shows the rotational limit of the interface,

I was thinking of skewing the mount plates to gain a few degrees.

boardski: no worries man, to each his own! you mean the original Raichle "Snowboarder", the white/teal/pink ones? I have a pair of those, my TLT5s are about the same flex as those with the soft tongues, and with the lean adjuster (in the Raichle) modded (remove some of the elastomer damper for easier forward flex. One of my lontime partners rode the Nordicas as well (SBHs). Heavy, but decent flexing boots. You might want to try on some TLT5s sometime to see how they are. Just a couple of mods and they ride way better than those boots, and weigh half as much, huge difference in the backcountry.

Keffler needs to allow for those riders who are at 0 degrees on the rear foot, plenty of guys do that in current HB set ups. Joey V is, I believe, at -5 or so on the rear foot. I am at +6-10 depending on board width, with a preference for 7 when I can make it work. Plenty of medial/forward flex in my system for this to be totally comfortable and flowing in style.
When one sees the bindings it will all make more sense, there are limits as to how much angle flexibility can be allowed for, to get more angle flexibility, other aspects of the design would be compromised.

Claro - thanks for the clarification, guys; I'll eagerly await a 45/15 generation to fit my very particular 38 x 5 deg stance. Keep up the good work.

Hey guys, Phantom has a FaceBook page, please help spread the word by "liking" and sharing:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Phantom- ... 150?ref=ts

John knows how to use facebook? No way...

Nice work John. Stoked for you.